Theology

5

F R OM S C R I P T U R E TO S Y S T EM

THE HEART OF COVENANT THEOLOGY

AT I TS B E S T, systematic theology never imposes a system on Scripture but seeks instead, to draw out the main teachings of Scripture from Scripture itself. At this point, I hope it is clear that Scripture itself requires us to distinguish between two types of covenant: unconditional and conditional. With the help of even some non-Reformed Old Testament scholars, we have seen the differences between the sort of oath God swears by himself to Adam and Eve after the fall, to Noah, to Abraham and Sarah, to David and his descendants, and the new covenant on one side and the conditional works-principle explicitly set forth in the Sinai covenant. This chapter moves into the heart of systematic-theological territory, relating our biblical-theological development of this theme to the traditional Reformed concept of three overarching covenants: the covenant of redemption (an eternal pact between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), the covenant

of creation (made with humanity in Adam), and the covenant of grace (made with believers and their children in Christ).

Three Overarching Biblical Covenants

Sometimes covenant theology is also called federal theology because of its emphasis on solidarity in a representative head. A representative system of government is called "federal," and Scripture calls us to see ourselves not simply as individuals but as those who are either "in Adam" or "in Christ."

A broad consensus emerged in this Reformed (federal) theology with respect to the existence in Scripture of three distinct covenants: the covenant of redemption (pactum salutis), the covenant of creation (foederus naturae), and the covenant of grace (foederus gratiae),1 The other covenants in Scripture (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic) are all grouped under these broader arrangements. In the distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, we will recognize the conclusions of our previous chapters concerning law and gospel, conditionality and unconditionality, inheritance by personal performance of stipulations and inheritance by another's performance, received through faith in the promise. Before we attend to these two covenants worked out by God in history, however, let us look at another that stands behind all others,

1. The Covenant of Redemption

Most biblical covenants are historical pacts God has made with creatures. The covenant of redemption, however, is an eternal pact between the persons of the Trinity. The Father elects a people in the Son as their mediator to be brought to saving faith through the Spirit. Thus, this covenant made by the Trinity in eternity already takes the fall of the human race into account. Chosen out of the condemned mass of humanity, the elect are no better or no more qualified than the rest. God has simply chosen accord-

ing to his own freedom to display both his justice and his mercy, and the covenant of redemption is the opening act in this drama of redemption.

Already we can see how such a covenantal framework challenges the idea of a solitary despot. The Father elects a people in the Son through the Spirit. Our salvation, therefore, arises first of all out of the joint solidarity of the divine persons. The joy of giving and receiving experienced by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit spills over, as it were, into the Creator-creature relationship. In the covenant of redemption, the love of the Father and the Spirit for the Son is demonstrated in the gift of a people who will have him as their living head. At the same time, the Sons love for the Father and the Spirit is demonstrated in his pledge to redeem that family at the greatest personal cost.

This is why we are not to search out God's secret decree of predestination or to try to find evidence of it in ourselves, but, as Calvin urged, to see Christ as the "mirror" of our election. God's predestination is hidden to us, but Christ is not. The unveiling of the mystery hidden in past ages, the person and work of Christ, becomes the only reliable testimony to our election. Those who trust in Christ belong to Christ, are elect in Christ.

So far I have offered some definitions, but I have not yet offered any biblical defense. Is this covenant of redemption produced by theological speculation or careful biblical interpretation?

In answer to this question, we first should note that some contemporary Reformed theologians have suggested that Scripture is silent about such an eternal covenant. Yet these same writers affirm the traditional Reformed doctrine of election: God has chosen many from Adam's condemned race to be in Christ, apart from anything in or foreseen in those chosen and according to God's free grace alone. If we hold simultaneously to the doctrine of the Trinity and unconditional election, it is unclear what objection could be raised in principle to describing this divine decree in terms of the concept of an eternal covenant between the persons of the Godhead. Second, we are not left to arguments from silence.

In the ministry of Christ, for example, the Son is represented (particularly in the fourth Gospel) as having been given a people by the Father (John 6:39; 10:29; 1 7 : 2 , 4 - 1 0; Eph. 1:4-12; Heb. 2:13, citing Isa. 8:18) who are called and kept by the Holy Spirit for the consummation of the new creation (Rom. 8 : 2 9 - 3 0; Eph. 1:11-13; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:5). In fact, to affirm the covenant of redemption is little more than affirming that the Son's selfgiving and the Spirit's regenerative work were the execution of the Father's eternal plan. Not only were we chosen in Christ "befote the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4 N K J V ); Christ himself is spoken of as "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13:8 K J V ).

The covenant of redemption underscores not only God's sovereignty and freedom in electing grace, but the trinitarian and, specifically, Christ-centered character of that divine purpose. It all takes place "in Christ"; hence, the emphasis in covenant theology on the theme of "Christ the mediator." Even before creation and the fall, the elect were "in Christ" in terms of the divine purpose for history, though not yet in history itself. Fat from being the result of abstract speculation, this concept of the covenant of redemption is both a revealed teaching of Scripture and the best guard against such speculation. Wherever God's sovereignty in predestination is strongly defended apart from such a covenantal framework, the concrete revelation of our election in Christ according to the promise of the gospel is often surrendered to theoretical debates that lead us into endless speculation on God's hidden counsels.

Despite this past consensus, Reformed theologians in our day are not unanimously persuaded that the eternal decree can be formalized as a covenant on the basis of exegesis. O. Palmer Robertson, for example, acknowledges the eternal decree.

But affirming the role of redemption in the eternal counsels of God is not the same as proposing the existence of a pre-creation covenant between Father and Son. A sense of artificiality flavors the effort to structure in covenantal terms the mysteries of

God's eternal counsels. Scripture simply does not say much on the pre-creation shape of the decrees of God. To speak concretely of an intertrinitarian [sic] "covenant" with terms and conditions between Father and Son mutually endorsed before the foundation of the world is to extend the bounds of scriptural evidence beyond propriety.2

Further, how could a "sovereign disposition" be true in the case of the Trinity?3

Here again we see the dangers inherent in too narrow a definition of covenant In the passages cited above, it would seem clear that the persons of the Trinity were engaged in a "pretemporal" disposition of some kind: the election of a people given to the Son as mediator to be preserved by the Spirit. In those passages especially in John's Gospel, Jesus speaks repeatedly of "[those] whom You [the Father] have given Me" (e.g., 17:6, 9, 11, 12 N K J V ). The very notion of soteriological mediation requires some sort of pledge arrangement. In fact, it is precisely this trinitarian covenant that is able to counter a hyper-Calvinistic tendency toward a unitarian soteriology in which "God" (i.e., the Father) sovereignly decrees salvation and reprobation apart from the working of the Son and the Spirit. A trinitarian soteriology emerges necessarily out of this emphasis. "Just as the blessedness of God exists in the free relationship of the three Persons of the adorable Being, so man shall also find his blessedness in the covenantal relationship with God," writes Vos.4

Part of the difficulty for interpreters is that these passages do not specifically identify the decree as a covenant. Yet, as we have seen, the Davidic covenant was only acknowledged as such by the prophets much later (Psalm 89 and 132), Despite his accusation that this doctrine of a covenant of redemption is speculative, Robertson himself introduces heretofore unheard-of covenants. In addition to the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants, he adduces a "covenant of commencement" (with postlapsarian Adam) and a "covenant of consummation" (Christ), neither of which is

identified explicitly as a covenant in Scripture. Scripture, to be sure, knows of no suzerain-vassal type of treaty between the persons of the Trinity. After all, each person is equally divine: there are no lords and servants in the eternal trinitarian relationship. Furthermore, there is no formal treaty structure to this covenant in Scripture—no historical prologue, stipulations, sanctions, and so forth. But we have seen that not all biblical covenants fit this suzerainty type. Only an overly restrictive definition of covenant would seem to justify the claim that the covenant of redemption is speculative rather than biblical.

The covenant of redemption, therefore, is as clearly revealed in Scripture as the Trinity and the eternal decree to elect, redeem, call, justify, sanctify, and glorify a people for the Son. At the same time, this eternal purpose would have remained utterly hidden from us unless it had actually been realized in our time and space. That is where most of the biblical attention is given. While the covenant of redemption is eternal and has for its partners the persons of the Godhead, the covenants of creation and grace unfold in human history and have both Creator and creature as their partners.

One of the most succinct statements of this scheme of the two historical covenants is found in the seventh chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith:

The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him, as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience. Man, by his Fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith

in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.

2. The Covenant of Creation (Works)

Founded in creation itself, the covenant made initially between God and his viceroy has been variously labeled the covenant of creation, nature, law, and works. All of these terms are appropriate, as I contend below. This pact presupposes a righteous and holy human servant entirely capable of fulfilling the stipulations of God's law. It promises blessing on the basis of obedience and curse upon transgression. It pertains to humanity in a state of unblemished nature, not in a state of grace. However, I have chosen to use the term covenant of creation because it is the least controversial and most broadly useful.

If the covenant of redemption remains controversial, the socalled covenant of creation as a covenant of works is more still, especially in contemporary Reformed theology. I will allow some of the tradition's most exemplary representatives to define the position. According to Johannes Cocceius ( 1 6 0 3 - 6 9 ),

man who comes upon the stage of the world with the image of God, exists under a law and a covenant, and that a covenant of works.... When further we say that he who bears the image of God given in creation was established under God's covenant, we do not mean that he has a right to the communion and friendship of God, but that he is in that state in which he ought to ask the right to the communion and friendship of God and to make it stable and so to have the offer of God's friendship, if he obeys His law.5

This covenantal arrangement is "God's pact with Adam in his integrity, as the head of the whole human race, by which God requiring of man the perfect obedience of the law of works promised him if obedient eternal life in heaven, but threatened him if he transgressed with eternal death; and on his part man

promised perfect obedience to God's requirement (Heidegger I X, 15)."6

The point that this covenant was made "with Adam in his integrity" is crucial. Prior to the fall, humanity in Adam was neither sinful nor confirmed in righteousness. He was on trial: would he follow his covenant Lord's pattern of working and resting, subduing and reigning, or would he go his own way and seek his own good apart from God's Word? Created for obedience, he was entirely capable of maintaining himself in a state of integrity. Therefore, it is anachronistic to require grace or mercy as the foundation of creation and covenant in the beginning, as Karl Barth and many recent Reformed theologians do, "Law" was not some external code, a list of dos and don'ts that stood over against humanity; it was the reflection of God's own moral character, which he was determined to share analogically with his human partner.

Law and love go hand in hand in Scripture. To obey God is to love him, and if one wants to know how to love God, the answer the Bible clearly gives is the law. Far from arbitrary, that law is the expression of God's very being. It is not an impersonal legal code, but the concrete revelation of that moral nature with which we were created as God's image-bearers. When we hear the divine benediction on the creation of humanity, "It is very good," we are meant to see that here God saw himself in the mirror. The law was natural not only for God, but for his image-bearer. The difference was that while God cannot transgress his own moral character, since he is necessarily holy and righteous, creatures are only contingently so. Just as they exist as dependent creatures, their holiness and righteousness depend on their determination to fulfill their "chief end," namely, "to glorify God and enjoy him forever" (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question and Answer 1),

The concept of a covenant of creation (works) reaches confessional status in the Westminster Confession, as I have mentioned, and is everywhere presupposed in the Canons of Dort.The

basic elements of the covenant of creation can even be discerned in Augustine's claim: "The first covenant was this, unto Adam: 'Whensoever thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death,"' and this is why all his children "are breakers of God's covenant made with Adam in paradise."7 Irenaeus, too, anticipated the central premises of the federal theologians on this point and clearly recognized the difference between the "covenant of law" and the "covenant of grace."8

While we should not be surprised to discover refinement and a variety of opinions on specific details, the contrast between Calvin and his later interpreters cannot be sustained. That is to say, the broad lines of the reformer's thought were refined and developed rather than distorted by his theological successors. In fact, the architects of federal theology clearly recognized that their covenant of works-grace scheme arose from their prior commitment to the distinction between law and gospel. As early as the first page of his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Zacharias Ursinus (primary author of the Heidelberg Catechism and formative federal theologian) states, "The doctrine of the church is the entire and uncorrupted doctrine of the law and gospel concerning the true God, together with his will, works, and worship."9

The doctrine of the church consists of two parts: the Law, and the Gospel; in which we have comprehended the sum and substance of the sacred Scriptures.... Therefore, the law and gospel are the chief and general divisions of holy Scriptures, and comprise the entire doctrine comprehended therein . .. for the law is our schoolmaster, to bring us to Christ, constraining us to fly to him, and showing us what that righteousness is, which he has wrought out, and now offers unto us. But the gospel, professedly, treats of the person, office, and benefits of Christ, Therefore we have, in the law and gospel, the whole of the Scriptures comprehending the doctrine revealed from heaven for our salvation.... The law prescribes and enjoins what is to be done, and forbids what ought to be avoided: whilst the gospel announces the free remission of sin, through and for the sake of Christ.,.. The law is known

from nature; the gospel is divinely revealed..,. The law promises life upon the condition of perfect obedience; the gospel, on the condition of faith in Christ and the commencement of new obedience.10

Calvin's successor in Geneva, Theodore Beza, made precisely the same point in his Confession—adding the warning that "ignorance of this distinction between Law and Gospel is one of the principle sources of the abuses which corrupted and still corrupt Christianity."11 William Perkins, father of Elizabethan Puritanism, taught practical theology to generations of preachers through his Art of Prophesying (1592). In that work he asserts:

The basic principle in application is to know whether the passage is a statement of the law or of the gospel. For when the Word is preached, the law and the gospel operate differently. The law exposes the disease of sin, and as a side-effect stimulates and stirs it up. But it provides no remedy for it.... The law is, therefore, first in the order of teaching; then comes the gospel.12

Continental and British Reformed traditions are agreed in their insistence upon this distinction, and it was strengthened rather than abandoned as federal theology became increasingly refined. This pattern of rendering "law-gospel" and "covenant of workscovenant of grace" interchangeable continues all the way up to Louis Berkhof s Systematic Theology, under the heading "The Two Parts of the Word of God Considered as a Means of Grace."13

Geerhardus Vos defended the importance of the covenant of works as part of the very essence of Reformed thought. First, "covenant" is very important early on—not, as Heinrich Heppe said (and later corrected), from Melanchthon, but from Zwingli and Bullinger contra Anabaptists, although some Lutherans have found the idea important.14 With Luther, the Reformed have sought to distinguish law and gospel in a way that any type of synergism (i.e., salvation as a process of divine-human cooperation) is avoided in our understanding of justification and rebirth:

"Whatever has grown in synergistic soil cannot bear any healthy Reformed fruits ."15

This applies also to the covenant of works. Noting a growing tide of sentiment against the covenant of works, Vos replies with great evidence that this too is from early days and enjoyed a wide consensus across the Reformed family: British, as well as Continental. We should "have no difficulty in recognizing the covenant of works as an old Reformed doctrine," with Ursinus's Larger Catechism as an example. "The doctrine of the covenant of works is found in the ninth question. The contrast of law and gospel is brought to bear on the contrast between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace."16 It is in the Reformed doctrine of the covenant of works that God's glory, the original rectitude of humanity in creation, and the imputation of Christ's active as well as passive obedience can be maintained.17"If we are not mistaken, the instinctive aversion which some have to the covenant of works springs from a lack of appreciation for this wonderful truth."18 Interestingly, Vos also sees a close connection between the eternal covenant of redemption and the temporal covenant of creation:

It was merely the other side of the doctrine of the covenant of works that was seen when the task of the Mediator was also placed in this light. A Pactum Salutis, a Counsel of Peace, a Covenant of Redemption, could then be spoken of. There are two alternatives: one must either deny the covenant arrangement as a general rule for obtaining eternal life, or, granting the latter, he must also regard the gaining of eternal life by the Mediator as a covenant arrangement and place the establishing of a covenant in back of it. Thus it also becomes clear how a denial of the covenant of works sometimes goes hand in hand with a lack of appreciation for the counsel of peace. 19

With the covenant of redemption, in which the Son is made the mediator of the elect, and the covenant of creation (or works), under which terms the Son, acting as mediator and second Adam,

won eternal life under the law, "earning eternal life has forever been taken out of his [mans] hands.,.. On this point, the entire Reformation, both Lutheran and Calvinist, took exception to Rome, which failed to appreciate this fundamental truth."20 In other words, the covenant of redemption contrasts the salvation of the elect to Christ's meritorious fulfillment of personal obedience to God's law.

Although this view of things is hardly representative of a fully developed federal theology, Calvin does assert the main features of the covenant of creation.21 In a number of places, Calvin refers to Christ's having "merited" salvation for his people by his obedience, once more emphasizing the satisfaction of law as a necessary prerequisite for everlasting life.22

By no means are these distinct covenants (redemption, creation, grace) to be seen in chronological terms. This is the tendency of approaches in which the Old Testament is identified as "law" and the New Testament as "gospel." Nor are the principles of "law" and "promise"—when applied either to the original covenant of creation or its republication at Sinai—to be given merely negative and positive connotations, respectively, as if they are static categories of damnation and justification. In creation (and in the institution of the theocracy at Sinai), law as the basis for the divine-human relationship is wholly positive. In fact, this republication of the law is itself gracious, even if the principle of the two covenants (works and grace) fundamentally differs.

The error is in reading Paul's polemic against "law" (contrasted with "promise") as (1) a problem with"law"per se (e.g., Bultmann, Kasemann, et al.) and therefore (2) reading into all accounts of law covenants the indictment of "legalism." No one will be justified by "works of the law," according to Paul, not because there has never been an arrangement in which that was possible (i.e., creation), but because since the fall (which the history of Israel recapitulates), all of humanity (including Israel) is now "in Adam," The direct problem is not being under the law, but being found "in Adam," a transgressor of the law. But can one be

legitimately sentenced under a law unless the stipulations and sanctions were clearly present and understood? And can this be seen as anything but a covenant?

The federal theologians founded this notion exegetically in two ways: first, by connecting the definition of a "covenant" with the admittedly sparse details of the Genesis narrative; second, by observing the references to such a natural arrangement in various subsequent texts.

As to the first way, it was argued that every covenant in Scripture is constituted by a series of formulae, most notably, oaths taken by both parties with stipulations and sanctions (blessings and curses). These elements appear to be present, albeit implicitly, in the creation narrative. Adam is created in a state of integrity with the ability to render God complete obedience, thus qualifying as a suitable human partner. Further, God commands such complete obedience, and he promises, upon that condition, the right (not the gift) to eat from the Tree of Life, While creation itself is a gift, the entrance into God's Sabbath rest was held out as the promise for loyal obedience in the period of testing.

As further confirmation, the presence of the Sabbath at the end of the six-day workweek (probation) holds out the promise of everlasting confirmation in blessedness. If Adam should default in this covenantal relationship, he would "surely die," and we learn from the subsequent failure of Adam that this curse brought in its wake not only spiritual, but physical, interrelational, and indeed environmental disaster. When we include references from the rest of Scripture, Adam is clearly seen not simply as an individual, but as a public representative. Not only was he in covenant with God, but all of humanity is represented as being in covenant with God by virtue of participating federally in Adam. If Adam was our covenant head, then this arrangement can only be characterized as a covenant. Indeed, all of creation was in some sense judged in Adam (Gen. 3 : 1 7 - 1 8; Rom. 8:20). It is with this simultaneously legal and relational background in mind that Paul makes his wellknown statements on the imputation of Adam's sin as the corollary

of the imputation of the second Adams righteousness (especially Romans 5 ) . 2 3

In addition, the literary elements of covenant-making seem to be present in the Genesis narrative, especially as interpreted by the rest of Scripture. Even in Genesis 1—3 we recognize the features of a covenant that we have delineated: a historical prologue setting the stage (Genesis 1-2), stipulations ( 2 : 1 6 - 1 7 ), and sanctions (2:17b) over which Eve and the serpent argue ( 3 : 1 - 5) and which are finally carried out in the form of judgment ( 3 : 8 - 1 9 ). It is only after this fateful decision that an entirely new and unexpected basis is set forth for human destiny ( 3 : 2 1 - 2 4 ) . 2 4

Additional texts besides Genesis 1-3 appear to take into account just such an arrangement. Peter Van Mastricht, for example, quite typically appeals to Hosea 6:7, where it is said of Israel, "Like 'adam, they have broken the covenant" (cf.Job 31:33, where "as Adam did" is the most likely translation). As a theocracy typological of the eschatological paradise of God, Israel's national existence was a repetition of the covenant of creation—hence, the comparisons drawn by the biblical writers to Adam and the original creation.25 Israel was called to see itself as the kingdom of God, a new garden of God's presence and a new creation in the sense of representing humanity before God—all of this typological of the true Israel, the faithful Adam, who is also the true heavenly temple and everlasting Sabbath of God.

As with Adam, the Sinaitic covenant made with Moses is conditional. If Israel is faithful, the people "may live long in the land the LORD [their] God is giving [them]" (Exod. 20:12 N I V ). Thus, Israel's tenure in the land, like Adam's, is conditional—although in both cases (i.e., original creation and the giving of the land), God's goodness preceded the covenant-making. Precisely the same terms and sanctions apply. As with his appeal to the two Adams for the imputation of original sin and justification, Paul, as we have seen, draws on the analogy of two mountains and two mothers to contrast the covenant of works (law) and the covenant of grace (promise) (Galatians 3 and 4 ).

But for our purposes here, it is important to notice, as Mastricht points out, that the principle of works is strenuously maintained in Scripture. The "works of the law" demand "most punctilious obedience (cursed is the man who does not do all the works therein')." Only in this context, says Mastricht, can we possibly understand the role of Jesus Christ as the "fulfiller of all righteousness."

Heb, 2.14-15 (since the children are sharers in blood and flesh, he also in like manner partook of the same; that through death he might bring to nought him that hath the power of death, that is, the devil).... If you say the apostle is speaking of a covenant not in Paradise, but the covenant at Sinai, the answer is easy, that the Apostle is speaking of the covenant in Paradise so far as it is reenacted and renewed with Israel at Sinai in the Decalogue, which contained the proof of the covenant of works.26

A further argument, says Mastricht, is the following:

Synonyms of the covenant of works are extant in the NT: Rom. 3.27 (where is the glory? It is excluded. By what manner of law? Of works? Nay: but by a law of faith) Gal, 2.16 (knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law save through faith in Jesus Christ... because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified).27

If one objects that these passages merely demonstrate the opposite conclusion—that is, that one cannot be justified in a covenant of works—these theologians reply that it is only humanity after the fall—that is, sinful humanity—that cannot be justified by works. Adam, however, was in a state of rectitude, perfectly capable of acceding to the divine mandate. As created, Adam and Eve's delight was to do the will of God.

To refuse in principle the possibility of Adam's fulfillment of the covenant of works is to challenge the original state of integrity.28 In addition to the exegetical arguments, Mastricht adduces the intrasystematic importance of the doctrine.

To very many heads of the Christian religion, e.g., the propagation of original corruption, the satisfaction of Christ and his subjection to divine law: Rom. 8,3-4 (what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit); Gal, 3:13 (Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us . . , ), we can scarcely give suitable satisfaction, if the covenant of works be denied.29

Olevianus, coauthor of the Heidelberg Catechism, sees in the original covenant's prohibition the essence of the whole law— love of God and neighbor.30 And in this state Adam could expect—for himself and his covenant heirs—royal entrance into the consummation, the Sabbath rest of God himself, and everlasting confirmation in righteousness. In the words of the Formula Consensus Helvetica, "the promise annexed to the covenant of works was not just the continuation of earthly life and felicity," but of a confirmation in righteousness and everlasting heavenly joy.31

A final argument in favor of the covenant of creation is supplied by Cocceius, in terms natural to one influenced by Calvin's thought: the argument from conscience. By nature human beings know that they have offended God's friendship and communion. All of this presupposes an original relationship that has been breached.32 Accotding to Cocceius, we know this is a real covenant from (1) the conscience (Rom. 2:15), (2) the longing for eternal life, (3) the "daily and continual benefits by which man is urged to seek his Creator and Benefactor and to love, glorify and thank Him."33 Evety human being is aware not only of God's existence, but of God's righteous commandments, which he or she suppresses in unrighteousness. Where did this awareness come from? How can an obligation to a person exist unless a prior relationship existed, and how can one be judged—even condemned, apart from any specific law that one has knowingly breached?

However, Scripture nowhere presupposes a universal knowledge of the gospel. The law is universal because it is natural: we are simply "wired" for it. It belongs to us by nature in creation, while the gospel is an announcement of good news in the event of transgression. It has to be preached, whereas the law belongs to the conscience of every person already. Therefore, the original relationship of humanity to God is one of law and love, not of grace and mercy. It is therefore premature to insert into the creation covenant an element of divine graciousness, strictly speaking. To be sure, God's decision and act to create is a "voluntary condescension" (Westminster Confession of Faith 7.1), as is his entrance into a covenantal relationship with his human creatures. Nevertheless, if grace is to retain its force as divine clemency toward those who deserve condemnation, we are wiser to speak of divine wisdom, goodness, justice, and righteousness as the governing characteristics of creation. Grace and mercy are shown to covenant-breakers and reflect the divine commitment to restore that which is fallen.

It is within this framework, then, that Reformed orthodoxy understood the active obedience of Jesus Christ, emphasizing the significance of his humanity in achieving redemption for his covenant heirs.34 His active obedience refers to the thirty-three years of perfectly obeying the Father in order to "fulfill all righteousness" (Matt. 3:15; 5:17 N R S V ) . T he priority of law in the covenant of creation establishes the fact that God cannot acquit the guilty; nor can he simply forgive sinners. In the context of the covenant of creation, the law must be perfectly satisfied, either personally or representatively. To reflect God as his image-bearer is therefore to be righteous, holy, obedient—a covenant servant, defined as such by the covenant charter (Hos. 6:7, with Isa. 24:5; Jer. 3 1 : 3 5 - 3 7; 3 3 : 2 0 - 2 2 , 2 5 - 2 6 ).

Thus all humans are created in God's image—and remain so, in fact, after the fall—precisely because they are expacto participants in the covenant of creation by their very existence. To be created in God's image is to be in covenant with God. Though

vitiated by human rebellion, this covenant is still in effect. One is either "under the law" or "under grace"—that is, bound to either the covenant of creation (Adam) or the covenant of grace (Christ). After the fall, any positive act of God toward human beings can be considered gracious. From his preservation of Cain to his providence in the secular nation-states of our day, God restrains his wrath as well as the effects of sin and even endows the wicked with good things in his common grace. Yet the terms for reconciliation with God remain in effect: under the covenant of creation, all are under a curse. Whatever gracious support God gives in this life to those who remain "in Adam," the final judgment will be according to works and entire perfection will be the only acceptable standard.

Israel's story recapitulates Adam's creation and fall. Like Adam, Israel is placed in a beautiful garden they did not make, with God's Sabbath enthronement held out as the prize for faithful stewardship in the land. Therefore, Israel's probation pointed to Christ in two ways: by reiterating the inability of humanity to fulfill the law because of sin and by establishing ceremonies, sacrifices, a temple, a kingship, and a priesthood as shadows of the Coming One, the true and faithful Adam-Israel. It is he who, in his royal entrance, brings captives in his train, claiming the reward for his obedience for himself and for his coheirs. Thus, in him, law and gospel embrace without being confused; justice and grace are equally displayed without being synthesized.

This account provides the soil for a robust notion of the humanity of Christ, God alone could not have saved us. Our Savior had to be the second Adam, Throughout his relatively brief messianic career, Jesus recapitulated Adam's testing in the garden and Israel's forty-year testing in his own forty-day probation in the desert and, in fact, the entirety of his life. On the basis of his having fulfilled the covenant of creation representatively (i.e., federally), he can now dispense his reward to us within a covenant of grace.

This doctrine of the creation covenant or "covenant of works" has been subjected to criticism not only by those outside of the

Reformed tradition, but by many within it. However, as we have seen, the doctrine is vindicated by exegesis, and apart from it, a great deal in the biblical traditions is left inchoate. While few of the biblical scholars we have relied on in the previous chapter would have heard of, much less endorsed, a formal doctrine of the creation covenant as we have here, the labors especially since the middle of the last century have contributed to renewed possibilities for appreciating the doctrine's significance. Indeed, it is not always the case that a dogmatic formulation enjoys such unintended support from the guild of biblical studies. If biblical scholars are providing new grist for the covenantal mill, it may be time for systematic theology to catch up. Nearly a century ago Geerhardus Vos made this acknowledgment:

For, although it is generally considered a dogmatic anachronism to carry the covenant-idea back into the original religious status of unfallen man, as the Reformed Theology has done in its doctrine of the covenant of works, a most striking confirmation of the biblical warrant for this view has of late come from an altogether unexpected quarter. No less a scholar than Wellhausen has observed that in P, the so-called priestly document, the ancient history is represented as determined in its onward movement by the four covenants which in succession God makes with man, whence also the name of "the four-covenant book" has come into use to designate the peculiar structure of this document. And as the first of these four covenants, it is maintained by Wellhausen and others, the author must have counted the arrangement entered into by God with our first parents in their original state. Thus the much ridiculed "covenant of works" has been exegetically rehabilitated and it has been shown that the Reformed theologians were not so utterly lacking in historic sense as their critics believed.35

O, Palmer Robertson sees more exegetical warrant for the covenant of creation than for the covenant of redemption. First, he cites the support of Jewish commentators who referred the original breaking of God's covenant not to the golden calf episode at Sinai,

but "to the disobedience of Adam in the Garden of Eden."36 "A bond of life and death clearly is present between God and man newly created (Gen. 2:15-17)," according to Robertson." The presence of all elements essential to the existence of a covenant in these relationships of God to man prior to Noah provides adequate basis for the designation of these circumstances as covenantal. Although the term covenant' may not appear, the essence of a covenantal relationship is certainly present,"37

However, just at this point, Robertson is reticent to adopt a covenant of works-covenant of grace contrast, insisting (as John Murray) that grace is fundamental to any divine-human relationship and that works are required in any such arrangement as well. This ambivalence leads Robertson to confuse the principles of law and promise: "While salvation is by faith, judgment is by works,"38 How salvation is distinguished from judgment is not clear, but in Scripture the good news is that for the believer the verdict of the last judgment has already been rendered in the present: "no condemnation" (Rom, 8:1 N R S V ), Robertson recognizes, "Paul contrasts the Abrahamic and the Mosaic periods of the Old Testament (Gal, 3 : 1 5 - 1 9 ), The apostle makes it plain that the inheritance of God's blessing is not based on law, but on promise. By such an antithesis, he sets the Mosaic covenant of law over against the Abrahamic covenant of promise." So far so good.

Yet it must be recognized again that Paul's ultimate purpose in this entire discussion is to distance the true gospel of Christ from every approximation of the Judaizers' false gospel. His discussion focuses on law as isolated from promise and its fulfillment in Christ. Law under Moses never was intended to function apart from promise. Separatedfrom its promise-dimension, which reached its fulfillment in Christ, law never could provide a way for making sinners righteous.39

But is it not the case that for Paul "law" never could provide a way for making sinners righteous even when linked to its promise dimension? Is it not the case that "what the law was powerless

to do" because of human sin "God did by sending his own Son" (Rom. 8:3 NIV)?

Robertson is skeptical, therefore, of M, G, Kline's defense of the classic federal view, which identified Israel's national covenant (Sinai) with law (indeed, the republication of the covenant of creation), and personal election and salvation with the covenant of grace (Abraham). Once more, however, Kline's position is hardly idiosyncratic. Not only is it an elaboration of a significant Reformed consensus in the past, but it is supported by numerous studies in Hebrew covenants by scholars outside the Reformed tradition. If we begin with an a priori definition of covenant that requires grace, we will miss the sharp distinction between law and promise that we find in Scripture. Our concept of covenant must be broad enough to encompass the various examples that we find in Scripture; otherwise, our systematic-theological conclusions are determining rather than resulting from exegesis.

This leads us to the consideration of the controversial claim that the Mosaic economy (i.e., the Sinai covenant) represents a law covenant rather than a promise covenant—in other words, that it is a republication in some sense of the original covenant with Adam. It is one thing to acknowledge the biblical grounds for the covenant of creation as a works arrangement, but it is quite another to assert that this is the sort of covenant that the nation of Israel had with God in Palestine. What should we make of this?

Kline comments "that the Sinaitic covenant as such',,, made inheritance to be by law, not by promise—not by faith, but by works,'"40 Robertson misunderstands this position as holding out two ways of salvation, but Kline clearly distinguishes, as the theologians we have considered, between the way of salvation in the covenant of grace (in both testaments) and the way of national preservation in the land, which is clearly founded on national obedience. Robertson does admit that the Sinai covenant highlights our sin and self-trust."In this respect, Sinai represents a covenantal administration in sharpest contrast with Abraham's promise-covenant."41 If so, it is unclear why Robertson would be

so reluctant to regard the Sinai covenant as different in principle from the Abrahamic and, consequently, to see the theocracy as a renewed law covenant, especially when there are so many parallels (the historical prologues, stipulations, sanctions, and even covenantal signs) between the creation covenant and Sinai,

Robertson does see exegetical warrant for the covenant of creation in the beginning/'Through this creating/speaking relationship, God established sovereignly a life-and-death bond. This original bond between God and man may be called the covenant of creation."42 Further, the Noahic covenant, given its absolute and unconditional character (God alone promises), brings creation after the fall into closer relation to the covenant of grace and God's final goal for all of redeemed creation.

The covenant with Noah emphasizes the close interrelation of the creative and redemptive covenants. Much of Gods bond with » Noah entails a renewal of the provisions of creation, and even reflects closely the language of the original covenant. The reference to the "birds . .. cattle . ,. [and] creeping things" of Genesis 6:20 and 8:17 compares with the similar description in Genesis 1:24,25,30. God's charge to Noah and his family to "be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth" (Gen. 9:1,7) reflects the identical command given at creation (Gen. 1:28).43

This is further substantiated by the tolodot sections: "The phrase these are the generations of..,' which begins Genesis 6:9 occurs ten times in Genesis. Each time the phrase indicates the beginning of another major section of the book. This phrase decisively separates the statement that'Noah found grace' (Gen, 6:8) from the affirmation that Noah was a righteous man' (Gen. 6:9)." 4 4 Further, families are included, as they are in the covenant of grace more generally:'"I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons' wives with you (Gen. 6:18)."'45

Similar to the self-maledictory oath that God swears unilaterally in the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 15), the oath here in

Genesis 8 : 2 0 - 22 includes a sign: the rainbow. As Kline notes, '"My bow' translates qeset, the usual meaning of which is the weapon. Thus, the recurring rainbow imposed on the retreating storm by the shining again of the sun is God's battle bow laid aside, a token of grace staying the lightning-shafts of wrath."46 It is a "pledge to death," with the seed of the serpent crushed (Gen, 9:6) and the opportunity for the redemptive purposes of God to resume in the world.47

This rainbow appears in the new creation with the throne scene: "He who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian, and around the throne was a rainbow that had the appearance of an emerald," with the twenty-four elders (the twelve tribes and twelve apostles) enthroned around the suzerain Yahweh (Rev. 4 : 3 - 4 ).

Robertson reminds us, "The Exodus narrative begins when God hears the groaning of Israel, and 'remembers his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob' (Exod. 2:24),"48 Thus, law is placed within the context of covenant rather than simply reducing the latter to the former. This is a crucial observation. At the same time, we must bear in mind that no text in the Law or the Prophets relates subsequent covenants to the Sinaitic in this way. While God's mercies to the Israelites despite their disloyalty to the Sinaitic covenant are always justified on the basis of the Abrahamic promise, there are no passages that read, "Yet God remained faithful to David/the house of David for the sake of his covenant with Moses and the people at Horeb,"The covenant does not work in reverse, God never remains faithful to unfaithful national Israel on the basis of the Sinaitic covenant itself—for on that basis, as he repeatedly says, he would have scattered them long ago. And yet it is on the basis of the Sinaitic covenant that God exiles Judah and eventually, through Jesus's prophetic ministry, abolishes the theocracy and pronounces judgment upon it. This reiterates the fact that the ministry of Moses could not bring about that blessedness that was the positive side of the sanctions—not because it was flawed, but because those who answered with one voice, "We will do all these things," in fact did not.

Whatever correspondences can be made between the original covenant with Adam and the covenant with the tribes gathered at Sinai, we ought not ignore the differences between the acceptance of Adam in a state of integrity and the election of Israel despite a lack of integrity (Deut. 7 : 7 - 8; 9:6). Brevard Childs reminds us:

Israel became the people of God, not by a natural bond, but by its experience of redemption from Egypt which it understood as an act of divine favour.... According to Exodus 19:1-6 Israel's existence as a special possession is conditioned on her obedience to the covenant, Israel's status was not established on the basis of her obedience, but a disregard of the covenant obligations could call the relation into question.49

This is a good point also in regard to the Adamic covenant: it is not that Adams obedience was the ground of his creation in God's image, yet there is a great difference between saying that God's creation of and special relationship to humankind before the fall was owing to divine goodness, and saying that God's election of Israel was an act of divine grace. Grace, on this account, presupposes a lack of integrity in the covenant partner. In fact, it presupposes a state of sin.

So it is a false dilemma to ask whether, for example, Paul has in mind law in general (obedience to commands) or conformity to the Mosaic administration—specifically, boundary markers such as dietary laws. Both are in view, as the latter is a distinctive of the former. Life does not come from the ministry of Moses simply because law has no inherent power to do anything more than command—even if it is God's own law. Not only some laws are in view: "But when the goodness and lovingkindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy" (Titus 3 : 4 -5 N R S V ).

The Decalogue (Ten Commandments), although it begins with the indicative announcement of God's liberation—thus showing

its continuity with the Abrahamic promise—is basically a law covenant. Purely a suzerainty treaty, it does not obligate God to do anything but instead simply commands, with sanctions for obedience and disobedience. If the Israelites, about to enter Canaan, obey God's will thus revealed, they will "live long in the land the LORD [their] God is giving [them]" (Exod. 20:12 N I V ). They are not promised that they will inherit the heavenly rest, but only the earthly copy of that rest, and this is how the New Testament understands the relation of the earthly and heavenly Jerusalem. So it does not contradict the Abrahamic promise in the slightest. No one in the Old Testament obtained the inheritance by works, but only by promise. Yet Israel's national status in God's land depended on fulfillment of the treaty's terms.

As the Epistle to the Hebrews emphasizes, neither Abraham nor Joshua regarded the earthly inheritance as ultimate. Instead, they looked through this arrangement to the original promise of a heavenly rest. This also accords with Paul's insistence in Galatians that the later covenant cannot annul the earlier one. The principle of law is the basis for remaining in the earthly land; the principle of promise is the basis for entering and remaining in the heavenly land. In this way, we are preserved from two problems that result from a confusion of the land promise (law) and the everlasting Sabbath (gospel). The first problem (older dispensationalism) is to think of the Old Testament believer as one who sought to be justified by works, and the second (covenantal nomism) is to regard the conditions for preservation in the earthly land as conditions for enjoyment of everlasting life, either for the Israelites or for new covenant believers.

Israelites under the old covenant and believers under the new are justified by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. The difference is the theocratic parenthesis of redemptive history in which the typological kingdom is front and center. But this tutelage gives way to adulthood when the reality appears in Christ, who not only fulfills the law in our place but pours out his Spirit on the true children of Abraham, Jew and Gentile. Thus,

they are correct who insist upon the continuity of God's covenant of grace from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Moses to David to Christ as to the terms of eternal blessedness in God's covenant. The continuity is between Old and New Testaments, not between the Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants. The sharp contrasts drawn not only by the Protestant Reformers, but by Jeremiah, Jesus, Paul, and the writer to the Hebrews require us to do justice also to the diffet ing goals and principles of the Abrahamic and Mosaic economies. The theocracy—the outward administration of the ministry of Moses, most closely identified with the old covenant— has only a typological continuity with the new covenant. It is the everlasting rest that alone constitutes the continuity of these Old Testament covenants that receive their fulfillment in Christ. Moses himself was deemed unworthy of entering God's temporal rest, while he was worthy in Christ of the everlasting rest.

The parallels abound and are too obvious to be unintended: Israel, "a land flowing with milk and honey," is God's garden to be cleansed from all "serpents" that would lead his people astray and threaten it as the dwelling place of Yahweh with his people. When the people are exiled, the land is reclaimed by thotns. Both begin with historical prologues: creation in the first case, new creation exodus in the other. Both have a conditional character, with the stipulations to listen to and follow Yahweh alone, with the sanctions of life for obedience and death for disobedience. "Do this and you shall live" is the principle of both (Lev. 18:5).

The sacrifices under the Mosaic economy, Robertson contends, show that this was not a works type of arrangement.50 But, in fact, these sacrifices only demonstrate that, as Paul says (Gal. 3:17), the later covenant did not cancel the earlier one; that even though Israel as a corporate entity could remain in the land only as long as they obeyed, personal salvation was still the result of faith in the promise, "It is sometimes assumed that the covenant of law temporarily replaced the covenant of promise, or somehow ran alongside it as an alternative method of man's salvation," says Robertson.51 However, there is no footnote for this assertion,

and in fact, it would be very difficult to find a credible Reformed theologian, past or present, who holds this view. No Reformed writer I am aware of has argued that Old Testament believers were saved by works simply because their tenure in the land (typological of the heavenly reality, particularly of the true Israelite who would come down from heaven to keep the covenant faithfully) was dependent on corporate obedience. Robertson implies that Kline sees the law under Moses "as opening a new way of attaining salvation for God's people," but this is a serious misunderstanding of Kline's position.52

Clearly, law functioned before and after this covenant, so why is it distinctively styled a "law covenant"? First, it is considered a law covenant because it gives greater fullness to God's previously enunciated commands. There is a particular concentration on the duties required of God's covenant people in this section of the canon and in this period of redemptive history. Second, law is the basis for whatever is distinctive about this covenant. The words here are carefully chosen: the writer is not saying that the entire reality of God's dealings with his people during this epoch is controlled by the principle of law or founded on it rather than on promise, but that whatever is distinctive about the ministry of Moses relates to the earthly, national, temporal, transitory, shadowy, pedagogical—and that this is administered by law (foreshadowing the true Israel) rather than promise. Still, the very fact that the true Israel himself nevertheless fulfills "all that is written in the law to do them" demonstrates that individual believers and their seed—even during the theocratic epoch— inherit everlasting life according to a covenant of grace. Israel's covenant-breaking, no more than David's and his descendants', cannot annul God's promise to Abraham and his seed (and in him, us all).

Even N. T. Wright, a critic of Reformation biases in Pauline studies, observes the necessary distinction between commands and promises. "As later tradition put it, Abraham will be God's means of undoing the sin of Adam."53

Except for [Gen.] 35,1 If, echoed in 48.3L the command ("be fruitful ...") has turned into a promise ("I will make you fruitful..."). The word "exceedingly" is added in ch. 17. And, most importantly, possession of the land of Canaan, and supremacy over enemies, has taken the place of the dominion over nature given in 1.28. We could sum up this aspect of Genesis by saying: Abraham's children are God's true humanity, and their homeland is the new Eden.54

The Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants are related as the everlasting Sabbath rest is related to the typological test in the land and on every seventh day. In fact, the Sabbath institution is a concrete instance of the double aspect: the outward observance is not dispensed with, but the inward sense of the Sabbath gains much greater clarity as it centers around Christ and his work for us (Isa. 6 1 : 1 - 3; cf. Luke 4 : 1 8 - 1 9 ).

Because the new covenant represents the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise, one might say that it puts the law in its place. Therefore, Robertson observes:

it is fitting that the new covenant radically alters the Sabbath perspective. The current believer in Christ does not follow the Sabbath pattern of the people of the old covenant. He does not first labor six days, looking hopefully toward rest. Instead, he begins the week by rejoicing in the rest already accomplished by the cosmic event of Christ's resurrection. Then he enters joyfully into his six days of labor, confident of success through the victory which Christ already has won. 55

3. The Covenant of Grace

T he third covenant in the federal scheme is the covenant of grace. Once the second Adam has successfully fulfilled this covenant ("For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified" [John 17:19 N I V ] ), the benefits of this feat are dispersed by the Spirit according to a gracious covenant. Thus, the terms of the divine benediction here are reversed. Instead

of acknowledging the inherent goodness, truth, and beauty of sinners, Jesus pronounces them just on the basis of the inherent justice of another (iustitia alienum). It is a true judgment rather than a legal fiction because the requisite covenantal righteousness is indeed fully present in the covenantal head (by fulfilling the creation covenant) and therefore belongs to his body by incorporation.

Like the covenant of creation, this covenant is made between God and human partners—in this case, fallen Adam, Seth, Abraham, and David. It is in this covenant that provisions are made for offenders, based on another's fulfillment of the legal covenant on their behalf. Thus, instead of it being a covenant based on law ("Do this and you shall live"), it is based on promise ("Live and you will do this"). There are real partners in this covenant (God with believers and their children) and real conditions (repentance and faith), but as it is grounded in the eternal covenant of redemption and the Mediator's fulfillment of the covenant of works, even the meeting of these conditions is graciously given and not simply required.

It is precisely this contrast that, according to the Reformed theologians, energizes so much of Pauline theology especially. Jesus is the faithful Israelite who fulfilled the covenant of works so that we could through his victory inherit the promises according to a covenant of grace. This gracious covenant is announced in Eden after the fall as the so-called protoeuangelion (Gen. 3:15). Eventually, God will call Abram out of the city of alienation and establish his covenant of grace with him, along with a provisional and thoroughly conditional covenant of works. The former covenant establishes the basis for the everlasting inheritance of the heavenly Jerusalem, while the latter establishes the terms of the temporal inheritance of the earthly Jerusalem as a typological reunion of cult and culture pointing forward to the reign of God in Christ. Abraham himself was looking through the temporal promises to the "city that has foundations, whose architect and builder is God" (Heb. 11:10 N R S V ).

As far as the temporal land grant, Israel ("like Adam," Hos. 6:7) defiled the land, transgressed this conditional covenant, leading to their eviction from the new temple-garden of God, but once more the covenant of grace provided the terms of rescue for those who looked to the promise rather than the law for their redemption. The Abrahamic covenant rather than the Mosaic covenant establishes the terms of this arrangement. It is in this context that we better understand such passages as Jeremiah 31:32: "It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt" ( N I V ), and Galatians 3:17-18:"My point is this: the law, which came four hundred thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance comes from the law, it no longer comes from the promise; but God granted it to Abraham through the promise" ( N R S V ).

Thus, in the covenant of grace, God restores in his new creation what was lost in the old creation and could not be recovered according to the original principle that was established in nature. Because of the covenant of grace and the Messiah's having fulfilled the covenant of works, "The promise of entering his rest still stands" (Heb. 4:1; cf. v. 9 ).

Covenant theology has always therefore been eschatologically oriented, convinced that creation was the beginning rather than the goal of human existence. Humankind was created to pass through the probationary period and attain the right to eat from the Tree of Life, Thus, the telos of human existence was not fully present in creation, but was held out as a future reward. Humankind would lead creation in triumphal procession into the consummation, represented by the Tree of Life, Adam was to imitate God's sovereign session and, as a creature, climb the steps of eternal glory to claim his prize for himself and his posterity, and take his place as vassal king under the great Suzerain. Only in the fulfillment of the covenant of creation by the second Adam is the destiny of the image-bearer finally attained.

God's call to Abraham was "Leave your country, your people and your father's household" (Gen. 12:1 N I V ). Similarly Jesus commanded his disciples to leave their nets and follow him. Whatever stipulations, whatever requirements and demands God puts on his people, they will never—can never—be the basis for his judgment of their status before him. Like the prologue to the Decalogue, the covenant of grace in every administration issues with a sovereign call simply to "come" on the basis of the liberation that has already occurred and is being announced. Since most of what follows in this work concentrates on the covenant of grace, I will let this brief account suffice.

Concluding Observations on the Covenants

Like much else in the Calvinistic system, a certain order makes one doctrine stand or fall on another. This may be the result of the imposition of a rigorous logic extraneous to the biblical text. Or, on the other hand, it may reflect the consistency of biblical and systematic claims. Regardless, each of these covenants stands or falls with the others. Especially in the light of church history, Vos's suspicion seems justified that a failure to adequately distinguish and maintain both the covenants of creation and grace, law and promise, eventually undermines the principle of sola gratia (grace alone).

On the other hand, as noted a theologian of sola gratia as Karl Barth regards the development of the covenant of works-covenant of grace scheme as a "fatal historical moment" in the Reformed tradition.56 Barth rejected this formula at least in part because it distinguished grace as a post-fall phenomenon. He also sharply disagrees with the "introduction of an understanding of revelation as a sequence of stages," which "contributed to the historicization of revelation in later theology."57 On both of these counts, however, the formulations of the older federal theology are worth reappraisal in view especially of some of the weaknesses that have been criticized in Barth's dogmatics.

In the light of our survey of Reformed covenant theology, Scripture is seen to be more emphatic that the original creation covenant is no more set aside than the law of Moses, but rather is fulfilled—not by us but by the one who was appointed mediator before the foundation of the world and has appeared in these last days, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, "There is no gift that has not been earned by Him,"58

Rollock already demonstrates how the work of the Mediator with respect to the covenant of grace was nothing but a carrying through in him of the covenant of works broken in Adam, "Christ, therefore, our Mediator, subjected himself unto the covenant of works, and unto the law for our sake, and did both fulfill the condition of the covenant of works in his holy and good life , .. and also did undergo that curse with which man was threatened in that covenant of works, if that condition of good and holy works were not kept..., Wherefore we see Christ in two respects, to wit, in doing and suffering, subject to the covenant of works, and in both respects he has most perfectly fulfilled it, and that for our sake whose Mediator he is become (Rollock, Works, I, 52f )." 5 9

The Anglican Puritan John Preston adds:

It is said, "the promise is made to the Seed," yet the promise is made to us, and yet again the covenant is made with Abraham: How can all these stand together? Answer: The promises that are made to the Seed, that is to Christ himself, are these: Thou shaft be a priest forever; and I will give thee the kingdom of David; thou shalt sit on that throne; thou shalt be a prince of peace, and the government shall be upon thy shoulders; likewise, thou shalt be a prophet to my people.,.. These are the promises that are made to the Seed. The promises that are made to us, though they be of the same covenant, nevertheless differ in this respect: the active part is committed to the Messiah, to the Seed himself, but the passive part consists of the promises made to us: You shall be taught; you shall be made prophets; you shall have your sins forgiven.... So the promise is made to us. How is the promise made to Abraham?

It reads, "In thee all the nations of the earth shall be blessed." The meaning is that they are derivative promises. The primary and original promises were made to Jesus Christ.60

As we have seen, many of these trajectories are at least anticipated by the ancient Christian writers.61 Vos thinks the covenant of redemption is the basis for the covenant of grace and insists that this is the great Reformed consensus, "The covenant of redemption does not stand by itself, but is the basis of the economy of salvation. It is the great prelude which in the Scriptures resounds from eternity on into our own time and which we can already listen to [in] the pure tones of the psalm of grace."62 It is what keeps the covenant of grace gracious, so to speak. It is the context in which union with Christ obtains such clear identity.

As Reformed theologian Wilhelm Niesel pointed out, even the third (normative) use of the law is supposed to lead us back to Christ. Although "Reformed theology recognises the contrast between Law and Gospel, in a similar way to Lutheranism," Niesel adds,"law"—in its third use, as guidance in the Christian life—now becomes adapted to the character of the covenant of grace.

If we enjoy union with Christ, not only we ourselves but even our works too are just in Gods sight. This doctrine of the justification of works (which was developed in the Reformed Church) is of the greatest consequence for ethics. It makes clear that the man who belongs to Christ need not be the prey of continual remorse. On the contrary he can go about his daily work confidently and joyfully,63

According to Vos, even the Reformed theologians "who strictly separate law and gospel and make the latter to consist wholly of promises—as a matter of fact, those theologians more than others—put emphasis on the fact that the law, as the comprehensive norm for the life of man, also determines man's relation to the gospel,"64 Interestingly, Vos notes that although the Sinaitic covenant should be seen as a republication of the covenant of

works, it is only such in the interests of holding out the promise of the covenant of grace:

When the work of the Spirit by means of the law and gospel leads to true conversion, in this conversion the longing for this lost ideal of the covenant appears as an essential part. [We] can also explain why the older theologians did not always clearly distinguish between the covenant of works and the Sinaitic covenant. At Sinai it was not the "bare" law that was given, but a reflection of the covenant of works revived, as it were, in the interests of the covenant of grace continued at Sinai.65

Thus it is not only through the doctrine of justification that we are able to assure disquieted consciences that God is gracious to them, but on the wider basis of the Abrahamic covenant of grace. "The covenant is neither a hypothetical relationship, nor a conditional position; rather it is the fresh, living fellowship in which the power of grace is operative,"66 Not only at one point (justification), but from beginning to end, the relationship in which we stand before our God is founded on God's own oath, fulfilled in the work of his Son, made effective through the work of his Spirit. For Christ, by his personal fulfillment of the covenant of creation, has won for us the right to eat from the Tree of Life. The inheritance that he attained according to a covenant of law is now ours according to a covenant of promise. There simply is no better foundation for confidence and no richer source of daily comfort in life and in death.